October 2024

by Robin Astle.

From FBHVC Historic 2024 Issue 3

DVLA by Ian Edmunds

In the June edition of Historic I reported that publication of the report from the Cabinet Office review of the DVLA was imminent. Since then, we have of course had a General Election and a change of Government. This in turn has obviously led to a different Secretary of State for Transport with the appointment of The Rt Hon Louise Haigh MP to the role. Incidentally, our Chairman wrote to Ms. Haigh immediately her appointment was announced, sending her a copy of the Federation manifesto (https://bit.ly/3yph9NS) and has received an acknowledgement from her office. However, we have to accept that historic vehicles will not be at the top of her agenda, for example HS2 has again been prominent in news reports in the last week of July!

As reported as a News item on our website, in July the Federation received a message from the Department for Transport Review Team thanking it for its “engagement with Janette Beinart and the DVLA Review team which has informed the recommendations of the final report.” and which went on to say “The Review has now concluded but as you will understand, the General Election has impacted the publication of the final report. The report is subject to approval by new Ministers and we will update you in due course.” The Federation will, as always, pass on any information asap.

Also a casualty of the General Election, was a DVLA Historic Vehicle User Group meeting originally scheduled for 25th June. This had to be cancelled due to the restrictions placed on the Civil Service during the preparations for an election. As I have been writing this, we have received notification of a fresh date of 17th September.

The major DVLA related event of the last few months (or maybe years!) was the issue of the Call for Evidence (CfE) relating to Registering historic, classic, rebuilt vehicles and vehicles converted to electric. This was announced by the then Secretary of State for Transport, Mark Harper MP, at Bicester Heritage on 9th May and circulated on the same day. I would like to take this opportunity to expand on how FBHVC handled this and in some cases to provide some additional background to the responses we made.

The Federation believes that this CfE is a direct result of the intense lobbying it has done over the last few years in response to the ever-stricter interpretations of policy being applied by DVLA. As such it was a high priority to produce comprehensive feedback on behalf of the historic vehicle community.

My initial reaction when first reading the Call for Evidence document was that the questions were not constructed as well as they might have been and as such there was a risk of readers and would-be respondents not correctly understanding the implications, particularly if they did not deal with DVLA and historic vehicle registration matters on a regular basis. This view was endorsed by a number of Federation Directors and thus the following approach was quickly agreed and implemented:

• Our Chairman, David Whale dedicated an entire Board meeting to this topic.
• We produced a first version of what I considered the FBHVC response should be to each question.
• Each point was discussed at length with the Board and a refined response agreed.
• I then produced a second version of our intended responses and passed it in stages to Lindsay Irvine [Legislation Director] who concurrently produced the survey document which I trust you have all seen.
• At the same time as all this was happening, Tim Jarrett (IT Director) and his team designed and produced the survey form. This set out each of our intended responses with the option for the respondent to agree or disagree. If they chose Disagree, a free-text box appeared to enable them to expand on their views.
• This FBHVC survey was circulated very widely on 17th May.
• By the time the survey closed on 1st July- we had received a total of 4,485 responses- of these, 81.2% expressed their agreement with our proposals.
• As the individual responses came in, I read all the comments and progressively produced a further version of the intended Federation response to DVLA to reflect those comments wherever possible.
• This consolidated version was reviewed by David and Lindsay on 24th June…
• then shared and discussed with the Federation Legislation Committee on 25th June to produce the final submission.
• This was passed to our Secretary, Mel, on 30th June and submitted by him in the DVLA format on 4th July.
• This final response is available on the website at https://bit.ly/4fxu29w

Nearly four and a half thousand is an unusually high number of replies to receive from a survey of this nature, indeed many Government Consultations receive responses in mere hundreds. We were all surprised and very pleased by this enthusiastic reaction and support, so, on behalf of the Board and myself, I would like to express our thanks to all those who took the time to complete the survey and submit their views.

Reading through the views expressed it was very clear that a significant majority of them referred to just a small number of topics. I would like to take this opportunity to explain the thinking behind the Federation position and in some cases to share the changes we made to the consolidated response to reflect the concerns that had been expressed.

The first point of contention was with the FIVA definition of ‘historic vehicle’ and in particular the words “… is not used as means of daily transport …” Some considered this to be the result of bad drafting by FIVA, but I know that a multinational group took time and care to finalise that definition so that it is appropriate all around the world. The particular problem here being that in some less affluent areas vehicles that we might consider to be historic are not preserved as cherished heritage artifacts but rather used quite literally as cheap daily transport, e.g. Mercedes-Benz taxis having fulfilled their life in some western EU states being sold to former Eastern Bloc states. In the final response to DVLA we added an explanation of how the definition should apply in the UK, including the words: “FBHVC considers that this should in no way preclude the periodic use of a historic vehicle for routine domestic travel as desired.”

Another topic to cause concern was kit cars, but I believe this concern arose largely from the unclear way in which the entire Call for Evidence was presented. From my regular involvement with DVLA and registration matters over the last 10 years I understand this set of questions to refer to the first registration of newly constructed kit cars, but to avoid any doubt the final submission was expanded to include this statement: “Nevertheless for the avoidance of doubt it should be made clear that kit-built and kit converted vehicles constructed 30 or more years ago should be treated as any other historic vehicle as set out in the other parts of this response.” Many of us will recall the passion for home-built kit cars in, say, the 1960s.

A number of respondents suggested in comments to various of the questions that we should be more precise in the definitions offered. After careful consideration and discussion, the approach adopted was based on an overall concept of recommending a single registration category for historic vehicles and the following was included in the introduction: “Overall the FBHVC desire, and recommendation, is that one new category be created in which all historic vehicles and all levels of repair or restoration, including none, can be considered under one set of criteria.”

The opportunity was taken in all relevant places throughout the response to emphasise two major long-running concerns FBHVC has with the current application of DVLA policy. It is stressed that like-for-like repairs are not, and should not be considered to be, modifications. It is also reiterated that coachbuilt, i.e. wooden framed, bodies (including sidecars for motorcycles) are unlikely to survive for as long as the metal components of a vehicle and that the construction of suitable replacements should not jeopardise the historic status of the vehicle nor its registration.

As in all that the Federation does, our comments and suggestions were designed to encompass historic vehicles of all types. Whilst technical details will obviously differ between, say, motorcycles and lorries we feel that the underlying principles should be the same in all cases.

I can offer no explanation, but it is interesting to note that although cars represent 50.3% of the historic vehicles registered with DVLA they seem to produce at least 75% of the registration problems, or at least the ones I know about!

In closing and to remind us what this is all about, I can share a small piece of personal news. In the midst of the CfE activities described above, and before my vision was totally restored, I bought another historic motorcycle. All I need now is the time to explore and enjoy my purchase!

Fuels by Nigel Elliott

Vapour Locking

Now we are well into the summer months its worth reminding our members about vehicle fuel system vapour locking causing hot start and driveability problems in classic and historic vehicles.

The boiling range of petrol has not changed much since the introduction of the first motor vehicles at the end of the 19th century, typically boiling between 30°C and 200°C. Whilst the boiling range has not changed a great deal over the years, the front end of the boiling range has seen an increase in lower-boiling components that increased the vapour pressure of the petrol and the likelihood of vapour bubbles forming in the fuel system causing vapour lock and driveability problems.

Since 1993 petrol volatility has been declining in an effort to reduce evaporative emissions from vehicles. Vapour pressure, a measure of volatility, is determined at 37.8°C (100°F) and is a good indicator of a fuel’s propensity to cause vapour locking in older vehicle fuel systems.

Fuel injected vehicles are usually less affected, as fuel system pressures are higher, typically at least 3 bar (43.5 psi) with good fuel recirculation to the cool fuel tank and this helps to stop fuel vapour forming in the fuel system. Some historic fuel injection systems such as Bosch K Jetronic have a fuel accumulator fitted that helps to maintain the fuel system pressure when the vehicle is shut down after a run. If you experience vapour locking with a fuel injected vehicle its worth checking the fuel accumulator, if fitted, is in good condition and making sure that the fuel injectors are not leaking when the engine is off, resulting in a loss of system pressure. Also, it should be noted that fuel pumps, for safety reasons, only run during engine cranking and will turn off unless oil pressure, and hence a running engine, is detected. Sometimes it may be necessary to crank the engine a number of times to get enough fuel pressure and flow to purge the vapour in the system.

Carburettored engines are usually the most sensitive to vapour lock with much lower fuel pressures of around 0.24 to 0.35 bar (3.5 to 5 psi).

Typical symptoms of vapour locking are:

• Stalls, hesitations, loss of power and in severe cases engine shutdown.
• Failure to start after driving some distance and stopping for a short time. Engine eventually restarts after cooling down for an hour or so.

Simple practical steps to help minimize vapour locking:

• Reduce the flow of (exhaust) heat to the liquid fuel supply to the engine
• Route fuel lines away from heat sources
• If possible, arrange for a smaller diameter return fuel pipe from the carburettor feed to the fuel tank. This will help to ensure cool fuel from the tank is always available at the carburettor. This is particularly important after the vehicle has stopped after a run, as heat soak from the engine will warm the stagnant fuel in the fuel lines. An electric fuel pump is helpful. Turning on the fuel pump will flush the warm fuel and any vapour bubbles back to the tank prior to starting the engine.
• Locate the fuel pump (e.g. electric pump) away from heat sources and, if possible, below the fuel tank to ensure it runs with a positive head on the suction side to limit vapour build up and avoid cavitation.
• Use a thermal break plastic/SRBF spacer where possible for mechanical (engine-mounted) pumps
• Shield carburettor(s) from radiant exhaust heat (especially where inlet and exhaust are on the same side of the engine) and use a thermal break plastic/SRBF spacer where possible to help isolate the carburettor(s) from inlet manifold heat.
• Check radiators for condition and effective dissipation of engine heat. Many old radiators may have become furred-up or partially blocked, leading to significant reduction in their ability to keep the engine cool in traffic.
• Ensure adequate under bonnet ventilation.

Often, simple modifications such as these can be extremely effective in preventing the formation of unwanted vapour bubbles in the liquid fuel. Relatively minor changes need not alter the character of a historic vehicle, while thermal baffles and heat shields can be fitted sympathetically to provide minimal visual impact.